Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 05:00:07 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #456 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 14 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 456 Today's Topics: Apollo Training in Iceland (2 msgs) ASAT wasn't orbital (was Re: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage) Astronomy Program Civilian Use of Ex-USSR ICBM's Clementine name Clementine Science Team Selected Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? (2 msgs) How to get there? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?) Mars Observer Update - 04/13/93 Quick reaction shuttle Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut) Soviet space book Space on other nets (2 msgs) University Charging systems. Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 07:02:09 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Newsgroups: sci.space Here is a better idea than a quick reaction shuttle.. Buidl a space station and have a space vehicle docked for missions in and around earth. Namely satellite rescues, astronaut rescues and such.. A SAR Space Ship (SAR= Search and Rescue) unless you have a medical emergency is the best way to go.. Once it gets back to the Station, then it can be transfered to a drop capsule for splash down on earth.. Basically the Space Ambulance/Rescuer get the satellite or patient. If its a medical emergency, the ambulance does what a medevac does/EMT does, get the patient stabalized for a splash down/or care at the station if possible.. If its a satellite, gets it and brings it back for repair at the Stations Workshop pr if its to bad, sends it to earth via scheduled shuttle missions or via the same basic method as a patient, but it can be easier (less need to preserve life).. If anyone has seen a few books on early future space exploration.. Saw a book about a Doctor who is hired to be the medical officer on a space station/microwave orbital power collector and beamer.. Can't remember the author and name, but I liked the idea and such.. Also the fact that the station was a commercial project and not a government one.. And the interplay and such.. I know the analog of Bush Medicine and such can be made into space.. Imagine if you will an accident where a person has multiple trauma and might die if not gotten to care soon. Problem is its up to a half hour to the airport at their village and the local health aid, then on a plane to medevac them to Nome and the local/regional hospital (with a nurse/doctor (normally an intern but might be a full doctor or a paramedic if available)) onboard from Nome.. Then upto a few hours to get the person stablized once in Village or Nome.. Then an hour flight to Anchorage.. BAsically by the time the person gets from a village to Anchorage and a full care hospital it can be from 4 to 12 hours, depending on the patient and the weather conditions.. We once had a medevac (I was not on it) from Big Diomede, the weather was terrible, the Russians could not get there for at a minimum of two days, the Army Guard/Coast Guard might get there the same day or next.. Well they got there the next day, weather.. The soldier was then taken via little diomede (another patient on Little Diomede which is next door to Big) to Nome and finally to Anchorage.. Big Diomede is in Russia if you did not know.. We here in Alaska have very good reasons to see normal relations between Russia and the US, cause we are in the cross hairs, we have relations over there and we would be on the forfront on relief to Providenya and Eastern Siberia. Food is in short supply there.. And it will get worse.. Well enough of this.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 14:17:28 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube[tm]) Subject: Apollo Training in Iceland I've read that Apollo astronauts were in Iceland to train because some of the landscape does indeed resemble the Moon. Does anyone have the story ? -- * Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment, * baube@optiplan.fi * advantage to him with the intellect * #include * most fermented ! * How is Frank Zappa doing ? * May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 18:26:16 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Apollo Training in Iceland Newsgroups: sci.space flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes: >I've read that Apollo astronauts were >in Iceland to train because some of the >landscape does indeed resemble the Moon. >Does anyone have the story ? Some of the Astronauts trained near Sudbury in Ontario for that reason. (The Nickel smelters wiped out the plant life down wind at the time) >-- >* Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment, >* baube@optiplan.fi * advantage to him with the intellect >* #include * most fermented ! >* How is Frank Zappa doing ? >* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !! -- Dave Stephenson Geodetic Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 14:56:40 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: ASAT wasn't orbital (was Re: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr12.175144.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >In article <1993Apr9.150945.7884@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >> back. MX has been launched from a C5, and neither system was designed >> for that. > >Really? I'd pay to see that! Yes, some in the Pentagon would also have liked to see that when it was one of the multitude of MX basing concepts. But, it actually was based on an experiment in which a Minuteman (I,II,III?) or a reasonable facsimile was dropped from a plane (a C-141 or C-5). As far as I know nobody tried anything with an MX or mockup. The Ukranians are however proposing just this kind of booster launch using the An-124 or An-225 and Yyzhnoye developed ICBM parts. There was an interesting comment about this kind of launch system at the World Space Congress last year. A military type researcher said that technology was close or possible to allow a aircraft to be outfitted with a propellant production plant (assumed LH and LOX) and the empty booster. The idea is the plane takes off, fuels the missile in flight and launches it and returns to base. This leaves no trace of propellant production or launch facilities in the country of origin. Of course you have to get the missile and special aircraft somewhere... >> A F16 has carried an orbital ASAT rocket. > >Whoops, factual error. The U.S. experimental ASAT was an air-launched Correct. It is the old Soviet ASAT which was orbital and conventioanlly launched by a conventional booster. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 13:45:47 GMT From: Kenton Brett Kirksey Subject: Astronomy Program Newsgroups: sci.space In <1qdk3j$oha@bigboote.WPI.EDU> ching@wpi.WPI.EDU writes: > Please post as well because I would be interested. > > Thanx. > > > > > -- > ------------------------THE LOGISTICIAN REIGNS SUPREME!!!---------------------- > | | > | GO BLUE!!! GO TIGERS!!! GO PISTONS!!! GO LIONS!!! GO RED WINGS!!! | > -------------------------------ching@wpi.wpi.edu------------------------------- I got MacAstro off of America Online and it is a great program. I believe it lists over 2500 stars and deep sky objects. Its shareware and there is a $20 registration fee. Brett Kirksey (grs04749@conrad.appstate.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 13:42:07 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube[tm]) Subject: Civilian Use of Ex-USSR ICBM's From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU > Subject: Civilian use of Russian missiles > > like the old thing about converting Tanks (MBTs) to Tractors > that it just does not work. Easier just scrap them and > recycle them into what is need and that is cheaper. And while you're at it, could somebody PLEASE beat some ICBM parts into plowshares ? -- * Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment, * baube@optiplan.fi * advantage to him with the intellect * #include * most fermented ! * How is Frank Zappa doing ? * May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 13:59:34 PDT From: Max Nelson Subject: Clementine name The name for the Clementine mission came out of discussions between Col. Pete Worden, Director of Technology at SDIO and Dr. Stu Nozette, one of the major managers on the mission. One of the mission's major goals is to survey an asteroid - a goal that may provide information on the utility of future asteroid prospecting (a subject that Dr. Nozette has written about in the past). Since the mission could provide information for future prospecting, it was felt that the name should reflect a mining theme - thus, was Clementine named. Let's just hope she doesn't get lost and gone forever. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 13:33:47 GMT From: Eric H Seale Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>> Clementine, sponsored by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>(SDIO), will launch a small spacecraft in January 1994 to orbit the moon for >>>>several months, then de-orbit the moon in early May 1994. >> >>Why is a civilian project being spoinsored by a military agency? >Why do you assume it's a civilian project? It's not. Clementine is >a military technology-test mission that happens to be pointing its >sensors at unclassified targets of civilian interest. Basically, SDIO wants to test out new sensors for potential anti-missile use -- international treaties won't allow you to test them on satellites (the idea of testing them on natural bodies is pretty much a treaty loophole). Eric Seale ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 93 16:00:04 GMT From: Frances Teagle Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have >been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e >may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to >make some closeup observations. The orbital trajectory for Comet >Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined. This concept of a temporary orbit is new to me, what mechanism enables a comet to break free from Jovian orbit, once is has strayed into it? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Frances Teagle, Joule Library, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD., UK | | email: ft@uk.ac.mcc.mailhost tel: 061 200 4917 fax: 061 200 4941 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 18:03 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Apr13.160004.21276@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, ft@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Frances Teagle) writes... >In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > >>Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have >>been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e >>may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to >>make some closeup observations. The orbital trajectory for Comet >>Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined. > >This concept of a temporary orbit is new to me, what mechanism enables >a comet to break free from Jovian orbit, once is has strayed into it? These temporary orbits are not the nice elliptical orbits that we are accustomed to. If you think of it more as a delayed orbit deflection (and a rather complicated one at that), then you might be able to visual it better. When an object such as a comet or asteroid makes a very close flyby of Jupiter, the tidal forces on the object slows it down enough so that on its outbound leg, the object doesn't have quite enough velocity to leave Jupiter's gravity well (at least initially), but at the same time it is not in a captured orbit. The object then falls back towards Jupiter, sometimes close to the opposite direction it was traveling, and makes another flyby of the planet, though not as close as the initial flyby. It is usually on this second flyby the comet then has enough inertia to break loose of Jupiter's grasp. The time scale for all of this can take years, but the object usually does escape which is why called a temporary orbit. If on the remote chance the object interacts with one of the moons of Jupiter, either by a collision or close flyby, then the object may end up in a permanent orbit around Jupiter. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 93 11:54:37 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: How to get there? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Apr13.160004.21276@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, ft@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Frances Teagle) writes: > In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > >>Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have >>been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e >>may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to >>make some closeup observations. The orbital trajectory for Comet >>Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined. > > This concept of a temporary orbit is new to me, what mechanism enables > a comet to break free from Jovian orbit, once is has strayed into it? While you're at it, comet experts, explain how a comet gets into Jovian orbit to begin with! There are non-gravitational forces from heating and outgassing when a comet gets into the inner solar system. Also, if it breaks up, the chunks go in different directions in a way that conserves momentum. So I can see how Jovian capture might work in a handwaving way. But I would like to know more detail. Also perhaps a review article I could peek at... Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | "Get the dinosaurs in, Martha, Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | they're predicting comets." Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | --Dr. Barry D. Gehm SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 18:43 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/13/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT April 13, 1993 On day 99 (April 9) at UTC 19:38, the DSN (Deep Space Network) lost lock on the spacecraft and no carrier was detected. Examination of telemetry just prior to the LOS (Loss of Signal) indicated that the spacecraft had an X-axis reaction wheel crossing event followed by a Starex reset and a subsequent star transit. At DOY 99/20:29, the DSN reported a low signal level, consistent with the Aux Osc frequency, and the ACE was requested to implement procedures for configuration for 10 bps downlink. At 99/22:19 the spacecraft signal was locked up on 10 bps downlink and it was confirmed that the spacecraft had entered Contingency Mode. Telemetry revealed that all subsystems were nominal in this configuration and that no hardware problems existed. The Contingency Mode Recovery procedure was initiated to start the process to reestablish inertial reference. On Friday evening, the spacecraft was reconfigured for an uplink rate of 125 bps and commands were sent to retrieve memory content readouts. Audit Queue and Starex Compool readouts provided sufficient information to determine that the anomaly occured as a result of a combination of reaction wheel crossing stiction, a Starex Reset and an erroneous star identification happening almost simultaneously. The spacecraft reacted to this with an attitude correction of 1.9 degrees. With a sun sensor resolution of 0.5 degrees, the spacecraft thus assumed a value greater than 2 degrees and hence failed the 2 degree Sun Monitor Ephemeris check. Recovery is underway and it is expected that the spacecraft will be back in Array Normal Spin by the end of day Tuesday, DOY 103 (April 13). The payload operations will be restored and commands will be processed to perform the MOC (Mars Observer Camera) imaging of Jupiter as that planet traverses through the Mars Observer field of view on Wednesday, DOY 104. The MAG/ER (Magentometer/ Electron Reflectometer) calibrations that were in the C8 sequence before falling into Contingency Mode is being evaluated and efforts are underway for inclusion of this calibration into either the C10 or C11 sequence. At the time of this report, the spacecraft has achieved inertial reference in the Sun Star Init mode and recovery is proceeding well. New star catalogs will be transmitted to the spacecraft today for L + 201 (Launch+201 days). ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 12:41:30 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Quick reaction shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: | |>needed a shuttle available, and even that took a lot of |>schedule juggling. | |There certianly is some truth to that. However, keep in mind that there's more |to orbital operations that tossing up some guys with space suits and a robot |arm. The Intelsat mission (or the Hubble mission) required significant amounts |of training and some new hardware. The astronauts are not going to just go |up and improvise. | |How difficult can it be to keep a |>shuttle stacked, and waiting for the occasional light weight |>mission? | |Try impossible. Or at least, not practical for the amount of money we're |willing to spend. For one thing, you'd be tying up a launch pad or VAB spot. |For another, the shuttle doesn't have an infinite shelf life. You can't keep |the fuel in it forever (or the food for that matter). For another, there are |things to do before launch besides counting backwards. The arrangements must |be made for landing, the weather must be predicted and you must schedule a |slot in the cape launching schedule to make sure that Columbia and some Delta |aren't trying to share the same airspace at the same time. | What I am asking is essentially a historically speculative question. It is irrelevant now, due to the number of commercial launchers available and a sudden surfeit of Russian equipment. However, My understanding is that the Orbiters have a 20 week mission cycle. From landing at edwards to Next flight. Much of that time is spent re-furbishing engines, etc. The VAB has 4 Bays. one could stack 2 SRB,s an ET and OV-100, and leave it parked in a spare bay. Granted, said bay would need to have support gear and be rigged out like the 2 primary bays, but it could have been done. I know the SRB's should be good for quite a long time. AF solids sit around for years qiting for doomsday. An unfueled ET, should be good for a few years also. The big question is the Orbiter gaskets, seals, etc..... But you keep a maintenance team hanging about. To me, back in 1979,80 it would have made sense to keep an orbiter ready to go, as nothing else as a rescue vehicle. In 1983, if a shuttle took an unrepairable event, Fuel cell explosion, etc. it may have made sense to have an orbiter that could get up there in 24 hours. If STS was going to be an Operational system, it makes sense to have a hot standby running. Obviously there would be some logistical difficulty associated with an emergency launch, but Somehow i think our KSC people could cope. Ask dennis :-) Certainly there would be some costs associated with this, but no greater then the cost of having a crew stranded in space. Or look at the Gulf war, Discovery bumped some missions to get an emergency spysat up. It'd be nice if you had a bird always ready in the cycle to take a quick response type mission. | |>Or some of these stranded comsats. GD stranded some bird in |>a low orbit, because of a wiring error a few years back. |>All it needed was someone to go up and change a plug. | |Pat, that was Intelsat. If you examine the mission summary, you'll see that |there was more to the mission than changing a plug. | I thought there have been a couple of birds stranded in orbit due to electrical problems or failures of the transfer stages. Henry, Do you know if there was another one besides Intelsat? pat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 22:08:54 GMT From: Willie Smith Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut) Newsgroups: sci.space clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >Also, I think Russian jet pilots are selected for small size so >they can make the cockpits smaller. In the manual for some tank game, they mention some of the specs on some russian tanks which are kinda interesting. [My favorite is how they discovered that aluminum and magnesium, while light and strong, aren't much good to build tanks out of... 8*[ Anyway, they mention in there that the size of the incoming russian soldiers has a direct bearing on their placement. Smaller soldiers get to be tankers... Musta been a good market for platform shoes! :+) -- Willie Smith wpns@pictel.com N1JBJ@amsat.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 16:38:08 GMT From: ASIDD00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU Subject: Soviet space book Newsgroups: sci.space A Soviet space history book named Cosmonautics: A Colorful History was published by Aerospace Ambassadors in January 1993. I was wondering if anyone on the group (other than me) had also ordered the book. It's been over three months and I still haven't received my copy. Anybody else have the same problem? Asif Siddiqi ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 93 11:57:30 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Space on other nets Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.astro For an article I'm writing, I would like to know more about space-related chatter on other networks, especially commercial services in the U.S. If you participate in astronautical discussions on the following networks, I'd like to hear your impression about their quality. Compuserve GENIE Bix America On-Line Prodigy Delphi Fidonet (Have I missed any? Is Delphi still in business?) I would also like other information: --Who is the sysop/moderator/den mother in charge of space on a given net? --Can you give me an e-mail address or phone number for the sysop? --What resources are available to the space enthusiast (especially if they're different from those available to the Internet/Usenet user)? And, of course: --In your opinion, how does the forum compare with those available on Internet and Usenet? Reply by e-mail, unless you think the answers would be of general interest. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 18:16 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Space on other nets Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr13.115730.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes... >For an article I'm writing, I would like to know more about >space-related chatter on other networks, especially commercial >services in the U.S. If you participate in astronautical discussions >on the following networks, I'd like to hear your impression about >their quality. I do know that all of the posts to the sci.space.news newsgroup are automatically forwarded to Compuserve and Delphi (and yes, Delphi is still around). ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 13:25:33 -0400 From: Pat Subject: University Charging systems. Newsgroups: sci.space From pete@biochem.uchicago.edu Tue Apr 13 11:00:39 1993 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 09:58:57 EST From: pete@biochem.uchicago.edu (Peter H. Brenton) Message-Id: <9304131458.AA18532@biochem> To: prb@access.digex.com Subject: University Overhead (Was NASA "Wraps") Status: RO >In article <9APR199318394890@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nas>a.Go >v writes: >>>BTW, universities do the same thing. They however, have a wrap of >|>10% to 15% (again, this is over and above any overhead charge). >|> >|> Allen >|> >| >| >|Wrong Allen. The max overhead charge is ALL of the charge. There is no >|seperately budgeted overhead in any shape size form or fashion. How do >|I know? I write proposals and have won contracts and I know to the dime >|what the charges are. At UAH for example the overhead is 36.6%. At Utah Stanford, I understand, was 70% or so, My univ-Chicago was 65% at the same time. >|State it is somewhat higher. At Stanford it was really overboard. All of >|the schools that I have experience with use the overhead percentage number >|and that is ALL the system can charge on a contract. >> > >Gee, UAH, has afairly low overhead charge. Are there any hidden charges? > >I know some schools applied hidden charges. 33% overhead, when the grant c>ame >in, but everytime you bought equipment there was a 10% procurement tax, >and a 10 % labor tax for every salary check. Rotten sneaks. There is no overhead charge made on equipment. A procurement tax imposed by an institution sounds rather unethical, especially considering that title to equipment bought on fed. grants generally passes to the institution and the researcher. I don't know about "labor tax", at U of C there is a 22.6% charge on salaries to cover the cost of the very comprehensive benefits package for full time employees. There is also when appropriate a tuition charge for student research associates who are taking classes. These are expected and accepted by the federal grants and contracts (primarily National Inst. of Health in my dept.). These grants are monitored very closely, both inside aand outside the University > >I think universities should have to compete on the Overhead charges. They do. Actually the rate is pretty much dictated by the feds. A bad audit can have a profound effect of both receipt of grants and the Indirect Cost Rate (aka overhead) allowed. >> >>I know that MSFC gets somewhere in the billions per year. If your asertatio>n >>were correct that would mean that the skim is near a billion per year. This >>is prima facia absurd. Where the heck is the money going? To lawfully >>contracted programs. There are small amounts of money that the center >director > The money in our case goes to the salaries of all the administrative support people (Myself included), the facilities maintainance, the departmental budgets (for office supplies, copiers, faculty salaries, administrative and some academic equipment, etc etc etc.). This year overhead from federal grants and contracts made up something like 30% of the budget for the U of Chicago's Biological Sciences Division (that's the WHOLE Medical School plus five other basic research departments) When they lowered our IDC rate by 5% it cost us about 7 Million Dollars of basic budget cuts (actually improvements in some other areas-clinical revenues made up for this somewhat, but it still hurt) In other words, the intent of the "overhead" charge on grants is to support the institution sponsoring the grant and reimburse them for costs associated with the research that is not directly charged to the grant. Since the Stanford incident we have been required to account for every dollar both of the direct cost portions of the grants, AND the indirect cost portion (which pretty much just got dumped into the operating expense budget before). REst assured that money is being used to support research, as is the intent. >Dennis. > >Programs may be lawfully contracted, but not have a line item >appropriation, even within the NASA budget. Look at all the people >at MSFC, do they get separate line items, no. Is there even >a line item for their salaries, probably not. MSFC, probably gets >funding of X, and then Money from each program office. any >insufficiency of X gets funded out of program wraps. It's a >very detailed argument in the acctg. > >My philosophy, is fund the centers on a 5 year basis. Give them their >base operating funds, and if they don't produce, kill them off. >Bell labs worked very well this way. NIH grants are 5-year grants. This is good. I see American Cancer Soc. grantees scrambling around to make sure there is "significant progress" in a year's time so they can get refunded. The 5-year grants still require a progress report and that a budget be submitted each year, but researchers can employ people with the assurance of at least 5 year's worht of salary money to pay them. One other thing to understand about Indirect cost rates, a 65% rate actually means that for every $1.00 spent an _additional_ $0.65 is paid to the University. the full dollar is still spent on research. Grants are awarded with this in mind also; a researcher who gets a $100,000 grant will get a check for $165,000 - she is not expected to take overhead out of the research funds. Sorry I got so long winded - this stuff is what I do - grant and contract management. I don't have News right now so I sent this to you. Fell free to post it with the disclaimer below. -Pete "The opinions expressed certainly have nothing whatever to do with the University of Chicago or the Department of Biochemistry (I just work there and use their toys)." Peter Brenton (312) 702-0030 Biochemistry & Molecular Biology pete@biochem.uchicago.edu The University of Chicago ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 456 ------------------------------